News Stories

[MUAHAHAHAHAHA]

Drawing attention away from speculations about the perpetrator, I would like to point out the various kindness that have arisen since the attack. A simple line such as " I have a place to offer" serves as an encouragement to the victims that they are not alone in this terrible ordeal. I read of how a man who lives in Hopkinton "would happily drive anywhere to pick up a runner who needs food, shelter and comfort", as well as a person who offers "space for one person on a pull-out couch" and "will cook you a nice meal too!" (source: Yahoo news).

The atrocity committed by the culprit is unspeakable, but the random kindness offered by strangers is very reassuring and acts as a reminder that people will come together in a crisis. As a certain saying goes, the worst of humanity brings out the best of humanity.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

They see a whole bunch of people partying. They pressed fire, a missile launch from the sky. That is enough purpose to convince a jury in this country. Imagine if I chuck a grenade into a crowed restaurant, if I was aiming for Vinny the Chin, a mobster, does that make my actions morally correct even if it kill a family of 6 in the process?

Perhaps you should question why these terrorists are hiding out in civilian areas?

The American government claim any young male age 14(?) and above are considered to be terrorists if they are found dead in the blast zone. If I was a Afghan/Pakstani/Yemenese/Sudanese mother, I would be be down right terrified. That is how Obama and Co keep the "collateral damage" figure down. I never thought I would see the day where the Bush and Co was actually more responsible with death tolls...

Oh yeah and please show me a legitimate source of where this was said?

Also please show me legitimate sources where the US purposely fired at civilian targets.

I am sure it will be cold comfort to the widows and orphans that the missile which took their love one away was not intended to terrify them. Can you imagine if China can fly over Ohio or New York and snipe wedding parties for suspected "insurgents" in support of Dali Lama or something?

Would that make their actions acceptable?

Once again if you have complaints on how civilian casualties of war are handled that is one thing. Perhaps the US could prevent more civilian casualties.

But civilian casualties are not the same thing as terrorism that deliberately targets innocent people and the fact that you even try to compare them is a bit ridiculous.

Just because I am saying civilian casualties and terrorism are not the same thing does not mean I am saying the US is above criticism in these type of situations.

[ArchmageXin]

Perhaps you should question why these terrorists are hiding out in civilian areas?

That is a stupid question. People live everywhere. They are not morally obligated to live in a cave and put a giant "terror man here" sign over it. Furthermore, every missile U.S fire into a dense neighborhood is like a giant recruitment AD for AQ.

Oh yeah and please show me a legitimate source of where this was said?

Sure.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20...pakistan-alone

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...-and-funerals/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2734133.html


http://rt.com/usa/drone-strike-obama-casualties-604/

In the last source in particular:

The White House convinces itself that the Obama-ordered air strikes overseas have not killed many civilians because, according to the president, any and all men near around a drone target are considered enemies of America and can be executed without being added to the count of civilian casualties.

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," is how the Times report it. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good."

But civilian casualties are not the same thing as terrorism that deliberately targets innocent people and the fact that you even try to compare them is a bit ridiculous.

You avoid my question earlier. Also, while being a Bostonian myself, I am not fan of the people who did this (may they rot in hell), but if the bomber in question was actually aiming for a specific person in the crowd (say, a CIA agent who took the day to run), would that make his action legitimate?

[Ithekro]

Only if the bomber was a legitament agent for a recognized country that was at war with the United States.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Only if the bomber was a legitament agent for a recognized country that was at war with the United States.

That is just wordplay. What I meant was if bombing a wedding party to get 1 person is ok even if 99 innocent dies, why is bombing a marathon evil? So if we had 1 CIA agent there as a supposed "target", then this event would not be evil?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

The American government claim any young male age 14(?) and above are considered to be terrorists if they are found dead in the blast zone.

Nice way of twisting the truth.

[Ithekro]

That assuming they were aiming for the wedding, or even a guy at the wedding. Military hardware does sometimes miss the intended target. Not sure how many iron dumb bombs the US used in the early part of the 21st century, but those are highly inaccurate.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Nice way of twisting the truth.

Read the source above, ok, it was not 14, I did put(?) because I can't recall the source (I think I heard it as a joke from the Colbert Report?), but "military age-males" and not every military can afford to recruit at 18, so you could indeed be a teen, get blown to smithereens, then get added to the "terror kill" and not a "collateral damage" list. (I am sure either way, the mother of the bereaved would not be comforted)

The White House convinces itself that the Obama-ordered air strikes overseas have not killed many civilians because, according to the president, any and all men near around a drone target are considered enemies of America and can be executed without being added to the count of civilian casualties.

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," is how the Times report it. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good

."

[Sumeragi]

Rule 1 of Counterinsurgency: If a region has not been completely pacified, all inhabitants of that region can be and should be considered potential combatants.

[ganbaru]

Only two bombs found in Boston Marathon attack
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F06T20130416

Venezuela post-vote violence kills seven, more protests start
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0RU20130416

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Rule 1 of Counterinsurgency: If a region has not been completely pacified, all inhabitants of that region can be and should be considered potential combatants.

That make no sense....

wait a second....

You realize that argument is so broad open to mass killings of civilians at will right?

And "potential" combatants isn't a free license for a shoot them all.

Also...

Furthermore....

If you want pull verbal BS further,

Pakistan and Yemen isn't at war with the US. What counterinsurgency???? America isn't even occupying their land!

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

That make no sense....

wait a second....

You realize that argument is so broad open to mass killings of civilians at will right?

And "potential" combatants isn't a free license for a shoot them all.

That's counterinsurgency. Like it or not, it's a dirty business, which people should recognize before they get burned.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Also...

Furthermore....

If you want pull verbal BS further,

Pakistan and Yemen isn't at war with the US. What counterinsurgency???? America isn't even occupying their land!

Lands in de facto anarchy aren't really under the jurisdictions of those countries.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

It doesn't illustrate a good point. Although I might not be supportive of every war the US has been involved in, unless you can prove to me that the US army purposely targeted civilians then something like this is not comparable.

Purpose? They died through an ACCIDENT that should have never happened. In this particular case, it was a WEDDING for god sakes. Think about the civilians who support the terrorists; are they just stupid? scared and forced to give shelter? No. To them, the enemy is the US, they are the ones destroying their homes and killing their families. How can you blame them for that? Its the obvious truth that they can see. If you plea to the world about the atrocities being committed, forget not helping you, they wont even BELIEVE you. So.. you hide terrorists with civilains there will be collateral damage = if you support these guys, these terrorists, (who are often your brothers, fathers, and friends), you will likely lose your life? How is this any different from the people who died in boston?

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/wo...,6644610.story

"NATO's International Security Assistance Force said it was investigating the airstrike and couldn’t immediately confirm reports that a large number of children were killed.

"We are still assessing the situation," said John Manley, an ISAF spokesperson. "We’re aware of the allegations that civilians died. We take these seriously."""

I hear this all too often, and its just not true. Do people think going to war justifies killing civilians more than terrorism does?

[Sumeragi]

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would say being damned for doing is preferable.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would say being damned for doing is preferable.

Sure, I agree with you, war is a dirty business, and its only logical that civilians will end up getting killed. The 'terrorists' clearly agree with you 100% too. Lets stop calling them terrorists and start calling them 'Islamic nation special task force'. So what is this, because they've already had most of their country destroyed its alright to slaughter a few more of them? Its not alright to kill people in our country because were stronger? Anyways, not really the point. The point is bomb-blasts and innocents dying happens everywhere in the world, but no one gives two shits about most of those people - A good example - Look at the tibetans setting themselves on fire, sure it created a bit of a hoo-ha but it took like a week before people completely forgot. Or the tens of thousands of tamils who were slaughtered in Sri Lanka just a couple of years ago.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

And "potential" combatants isn't a free license for a shoot them all.

That is where the military industrial complex makes money. I have seen those rubber-tipped non-penetrating 9mm rounds and each of them costs 50-60 cents each to manufacture, that is 3-times the amount a normal 9mm with a copper-jacket-lead-core bullet. And the use of those reflex sights addons to normal rifles with established iron-sights for precision aiming, finding the "correct" one and fixing them on 1000+ rifles isn't cheap.

I wouldn't use the term "dirty" business, rather, I would use the term "messy" business because it takes alot of training, doctrines, re-evaluation of SOPs and established protocols. Oh yes and your trainees will have to expend more rounds in those mockups again and again until it becomes their second nature, from which they go for other training, lose that feel, then refresher after refresher........

That is a hell lot of money someone can make providing those services - ask anyone here who served in any military and have training in asymmetric warfare about how much more is the total cost of the gear each of them carry, as compared to the insurgents they are fighting. I believe even with the simplest SMG/rifle + pistol + body armor + OC spray/taser + laser pointer + handcuffs gear, we can arm 3-4 insurgents with crummy rifles and up to 90 rounds each.

[Dhomochevsky]

The date for our withdrawel from Afghanistan has already been set.
There is no plan anymore, other than 'pack up our things end get them out in time'.
We have no goals left, that we could achieve within this time.

Still, the bombing keeps going on. Whatever purpose it had in the beginning, now it's just a useless routine.
In about two years, we will have left the place and nothing we do now will have any impact on what happens afterwards.
Only the people we kill up till that last day will still be dead.

I find it stupid to relativate bombings with other bombings. But to say that our operation in Afghanistan is in any way justified, is just strange.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

I find it stupid to relativate bombings with other bombings. But to say that our operation in Afghanistan is in any way justified, is just strange.

Well it is a good laugh for the Russians.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would say being damned for doing is preferable.

I love that logic until it is applied to someone you care about by someone you hate.

[ganbaru]

Bomb Details Emerge in Boston Inquiry
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us...xplosions.html

BOSTON — The explosives used to kill three people and injure 176 at the Boston Marathon on Monday were likely some kind of “pressure-cooker” devices that sent sharp bits of shrapnel flying into victims in the vicinity of the blast, several law enforcement officials said Tuesday.

It might be a stupid question to ask but did soldiers than served in Afghanistan or Irak learn much about how were made the IED than where used against them ?